About The Author

46 Comments

I really hope Apple is held accountable for this and not just given a slap on the wrist.

Regardless of what you think of their products or the whole innovation/evolution debate, tampering with evidence is a serious offense. Furthermore, using such false documents to force a ban on competitors is so far outside of what I’d personally class as fair competition that a monetary penalty doesn’t even begin to equate to the audacity demonstrated.

I didn’t say that. The Samsung ban is silly, but I don’t see how a disingenuous lawsuit should lead to a ban on sales for the other company. A hefty fine + damages for lost sales, yes.

If the ban on Samsung is silly but is implemented already, then silly is possible in Europe. I only want that the same thing is applied to Apple. Or are you saying that there should be double standards?

A hefty fine will not hurt Apple in any way. IIRC they have 75 billion in cash. The court needs to punish Apple in a way that will make Apple think twice before pulling frivolous lawsuits on competitors.

Apple brought their iThing to the judge, Samsung brought their sThing to the judge, Apple said ‘their sThing looks like our iThing and we there is this here law that says their not allowed to do that’, judge said ‘I agree.’

No one is twisting any laws here.

]{

PS. I love it how you say that a massive APAC company that generates huge profits by paying substandard wages (by western standards) is ‘the victim’.

That said I would never suggest Apple or any other multinational corporation is a ‘victim’.

The use of laws (defined by democratically elected officials) to advance your business is, IMO, perfectly legitimate. Now I don’t personally agrees with these laws but that does not invalidate them.

What, a victim makes, best not decided by you, then. According to your logic, the nature of recipient of unfair treatment is the determining factor in choosing to brand someone a “victim”. I profoundly resent that point of view. Irrespective of the nature (or type) of recipient, unfair treatment is unfair! That is also one of the fundamental principals of any democratic society (equal rights)

What, a victim makes, best not decided by you, then. According to your logic, the nature of recipient of unfair treatment is the determining factor in choosing to brand someone a “victim”. I profoundly resent that point of view. Irrespective of the nature (or type) of recipient, unfair treatment is unfair! That is also one of the fundamental principals of any democratic society (equal rights)

My position is that, in democratic society, the application of a law created by democratically elected officials, in a manner in which it was intended, cannot implicitly make you a ‘victim’ because such laws apply fairly and equally to everyone.

In fact, when one has been wronged under the law, it is typically the wronged party that is considered the ‘victim’ (which in this case would be Apple) though as I have stated in the previous posts I don’t view corporations as people and so I don’t think it could be said that the corporation as a whole can be victimized.

Apple brought their iThing to the judge, Samsung brought their sThing to the judge, Apple said ‘their sThing looks like our iThing and we there is this here law that says their not allowed to do that’, judge said ‘I agree.’

No one is twisting any laws here.

]{

PS. I love it how you say that a massive APAC company that generates huge profits by paying substandard wages (by western standards) is ‘the victim’.

Samsung is just copying everything Apple does. The Galaxy S phones look too much like the iPhone that people get confused so they should be banned worldwide. The Galaxy Tab looks so much like the iPad Samsung should be ordered to pay Apple all of the profit they have earned since its first release.

The Galaxy S phones look too much like the iPhone that people get confused so they should be banned worldwide.

I know right?!

Same problem with tires – every time i see those round black things on a wheel, I immediately assume they’re Firestone tires, and then I get up close and they’re Michelin! DAMNIT! They should outlaw anyone else from making black circular rubber tires… even though they have the name brand printed right on them, it’s sooo confusing!

Actually, funny you should say that, because tires were patented, tubeless tires were patented, tires with added stuff to make them stronger were patented and so on.

The only reason why those round black things are used by everyone these days is that the patents have long expired. If you made one just like it (even if it was made of different stuff) while the patent was still in force you would face litigations.

That’s sort of the way patents and copyrights work (not saying it’s right but if you have an issue it’s the laws you should be looking to change).

Actually, funny you should say that, because tires were patented, tubeless tires were patented, tires with added stuff to make them stronger were patented and so on.

Funny you should say that, because patents aren’t the reason for this injunction. It’s a “community design” case where Apple claims that Samsung’s devices *look* too much like their generic drawings and utterly simplistic design.

Actually, a ‘community design’ is essentially the equivalent of a ‘design patent’.

(You know it’s really lame to call someone a troll because they challenge your factual interpretation of an event. If you have facts to back up your position why not simply state that, why start crying ‘troll’.)

(You know it’s really lame to call someone a troll because they challenge your factual interpretation of an event. If you have facts to back up your position why not simply state that, why start crying ‘troll’.)

Heh, I’ve been called troll for far less – somehow it didn’t bother me enough to make a point of whining about it.

Edit: Oh, and I came with my facts – Community Designs are not patents or copyright.

I just wish I’d registered a community design on a PC tower case. A large cuboid with a power button on the front and slots for a couple of optical drives. Surely nobody could’ve come up with that idea independently?

Yes, the S2 looks like the iPhone, but even when the iPhone originally came out there had been PDAs and other devices which were mostly screen and a button or two on one end. There are only so many combinations to that form that can be made before they all start looking like each other. Not from copying another design, but because they’re all so bloody close.

If You carried on with this investigation, You would find out, that the word “patent” in “disgn patent” is derived from the latin word “patens” (certificate), while the term patent (without “design”) is derived from the word “patere” (to lay open). This happened because “patent” and “design patent” denote *unrelated* exclusive rights.

I look at my computer screen and it is a rectangle with rounded corners and the screen is on the front side. I look at other brands of computer screens and they are the almost the same. You can only tell the brand by checking the logo. What is Samsung supposed to do to make their tablets different? Make oval tablets? Put the screen on the edge of the tablet?

So (s)he is a coward then and takes the easy option out rather than risk making a landmark decision.

The landmark decision has already been made in Netherlands. All she had to do was acknowledge the fact that she was stupid when she decided to ban Samsung, apologize for her utter stupidity and lift the ban.

It would be an admittance of failure regarding the first injunction if she backed off now. In the final ruling she can dismiss the injunction more easily, by claiming she has now studied all the evidence.

Simple, really. People are very easy to understand. I can guarantee you she’ll lift the injunction come September 9. 100%.

In Australia an individual or corporation can be declared a vexatious litigant for repeatedly using the legal system solely to harrass or subdue an adversary. They are then (permanently) banned from pursuing any further civil court actions.